The firm techDavis, citing potential conflicts of interest, is pulling back funding for the Chief Innovation Officer position in order to avoid any potential conflicts or perceived conflicts of interest.
Staff believes that “funding the position solely from city funds will provide an added benefit to the City by removing any financial connection between the funding of this position and the business community, thereby removing any perceived conflicts of interest between the position and the mission of the Chief Innovation Officer.”
In the staff report of the consent item, staff writes, “The City believes the Chief Innovation Officer is and will continue to be a valuable resource in attracting and retaining technology businesses in the City and developing a positive business climate by supporting local business interests and growth of innovation/technology companies, with the objective to include creation of highly skilled, high wage jobs, increased private sector investment, and new revenue generation.”
In an email to the Davis City Council, Davis Morris of techDavis wrote, “This is in response to concerns from the City Attorney related to perceived conflicts between the duties of the CIO and the sources of funding for techDAVIS. The City Attorney acknowledges that there are no actual conflicts under the existing partnership, but this proposed alternative eliminates any question and gives the City more flexibility to engage with the tech community via techDAVIS.”
In press release, Mr. Morris writes, “techDAVIS has proposed a new Cooperative Agreement to the City of Davis that will dedicate $360,000 in funding over the next three fiscal years for shared initiatives, including work on technology‐related economic development, branding, advocacy, and partnership enhancement with the business, research, academic, and capital sectors. The proposed Cooperative Agreement will be considered by the Davis City Council at the July 2nd City Council meeting.”
“The proposed Cooperative Agreement would replace the previous contractual agreement that provides funding for the City’s Chief Innovation Officer (CIO) position,” the release continued.
Under the current contract, techDAVIS agreed to provide the City with funds to offset 50% of the full‐time CIO position.
“By removing the current contract and switching to the proposed Cooperative Agreement, techDAVIS hopes to address community concerns regarding conflicts between the work activities of the CIO position and the funding sources of techDAVIS, and create a renewed commitment to the same level of funding redirected to broad technology‐related economic development activities,” the release continues.
“techDAVIS is proactively offering the City this proposed Cooperative Agreement as a means to maintain the funding commitment of $360,000 over three years,” said David Morris, Managing Director of the techDAVIS Business Association. “By redirecting the funding commitment from a specific staff position towards shared technology‐sector economic development activities, techDAVIS and the City can continue to focus on meaningful outreach and support for the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Davis.”
The release states, “As stated in the proposed Cooperative Agreement, the purpose of this partnership with the City is to increase economic development activities that benefit the citizens of the City, increase job opportunities, recruit businesses to locate within the City, retain existing businesses located within the City, provide opportunities to partner with UC Davis and others to foster innovation and startup companies located within the City, and enhance the Davis entrepreneurial ecosystem.”
It continues, “With over 40 technology‐based businesses, a blossoming entrepreneurial sector, and an unparalleled research university in agriculture and medical technologies, Davis is poised to become a regional leader for municipal innovation and a national example of leveraging public/private partnerships to help grow a knowledge‐based economy.”
On March 5, the Davis City council created the Chief Innovation Officer position “to provide economic development advocacy, strong leadership and additional staff resources needed to implement the City’s economic development priorities.
At that time, the position was partially funded by techDavis, creating a public-private partnership.
Under the current agreement, techDAVIS provides to the City funds to offset 50% of the full time position, with the other 50% of funding coming from the City of Davis. The city’s funding obligation is $120,000 per year. techDavis agreed to match this funding.
As explained previously, techDavis sought to shield the influence of any one entity, by collecting $10,000 from 36 different companies and entities to fund the position. However, in May of 2013, community concern regarding the contractual relationship between techDAVIS and the city, “led City staff and techDAVIS to negotiate a new Cooperative Agreement.”
This concern was bolstered during the Mace Curve debate where it seemed that techDavis, the CIO position, and Capitol Corridor Ventures created too close a nexus on a critical policy debate. This led the city attorney to create a firewall, effectively precluding Rob White, the CIO hired by the city, from participating in policy disucssions.
According to the techDavis release, “This (new) Agreement continues the partnership and dedicates funding for tech‐sector economic development and shared initiatives while removing any potential conflicts from the CIO position.”
The staff report notes, “Even though this employee’s work is directed solely by the City Manager and based on goals set forth by the City Council, the City of Davis would like to sever the current agreement and work towards a broader agreement that does not require the techDAVIS funds to be allocated to a specific staff position.”
The move would cost about $40,000 this year from the General Fund Balance.
The city intends to look for grants and other sources to help fund the two years of $120,000 still remaining on the current contract.
“The contract was modeled after the public‐private partnership created in late 2012 by the City of San Leandro and their tech business community,” the techDAVIS press release notes. “It was determined by the City of Davis that joining an elite group of cities in creating the municipal CIO position, Davis could work with jurisdictions such as San Francisco, Philadelphia, New York City and Chicago to share ideas and best practices in developing innovation ecosystems through this type of municipal engagement.”
The release continues, “A concept first identified by cities, states, and then the federal government, the municipal CIO position was most recently highlighted in a January 2013 news article titled “Will the Chief Innovation Officer Transform Government?” by David Raths in Government Technology magazine. As described in the article, the CIO position is intended to challenge the fundamental ways that governments conduct business and to drive core innovations throughout their organizations and within their communities.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Pfffft!!!
And any connection just magically disappears.
“This led the City Attorney to create a firewall, effectively precluding Rob White, the CIO hired by the city, from participating in policy disucssions.”
Effectively eliminating the possibility that the CIO could do the work for which he’s being paid. Interesting that this (like the Mace Curve proposal) shows up on the consent calendar, leaving all the discussion regarding the matter to techDAVIS and its news release.
The city attorney has declared “that there are no actual conflicts under the (original) partnership”? The staff work on this partnership has been particularly inept. It’s a civic mystery why they couldn’t the foresee potential conflicts of interest that were exposed early by Vanguard readers and, then, more publicly and embarrassingly during the easement switch discussion.
This is an important course correction, but Rob White has a tough job ahead restoring confidence that techDAVIS and the closely related property development business won’t have undue influence after the recent events.
The way that techDAVIS funds city projects (rather than a city salary) better be much more transparent. Davis has enough anti-development opinions without providing them more ammunition with which to shoot down innovation parks and other proposals.
So my take here is that the private-public partnership was a good idea, but the city figured out quickly that there were some entanglements. I just think that with Dave Morris having his hand in techDavis, CCV, and techDavis funding the CIO 50%, it was messy.
I think Dave Morris, who I spoke with a few weeks back, had good intentions, there were just some glitches here and it will smooth things out for the funding not to be by the same entity hoping to set policy changes.
So I think this was a good thing. I thought that the plan for 10K per group was a good safeguard, but the Mace Curve discussion was a problem and I honestly believe that had Rob White not been firewalled, the process would have been smoother.
So hopefully this fix perception and some of the engtanglements.
David:
[quote]So hopefully this fix perception [/quote]
LOL, Freudian slip?
No just tired.
Wait, sorry, could someone explain these references to the Mace Curve? Is there a proposal to build Silicon Valley East there where the ranch is where we have been trying for years to get a permanent easement and to keep development off? If so, will any such proposal go to referendum?
Thanks.
I agree that the Dave Morris connections were the problem exposed at the Mace discussion. It was surprising how little some of the council members knew about the two groups and their leadership. Of course, it seems clear that none of these items would have been on the table for consideration with Dave’s initiative and funding access.
The public/private partnersip is a good concept, and I bope it can be successful in spite of the shaky rollout. I’d say the staff deserves a talking to for its lack of preparation and poor presentation.
Fire-walling Rob White is not a solution. He needs to be freed up to participate. He obviously has the experience and expertise to help Davis if allowed to and if he can avoid the Dave Morris conflict problems.
Public-private partnerships help diversify perspectives, ideas, energy. They provide the necessary drive to get something done.
conniealvarez: [quote]Is there a proposal to build Silicon Valley East there where the ranch is where we have been trying for years to get a permanent easement and to keep development off? If so, will any such proposal go to referendum?
Thanks.[/quote]
There was a proposal that would have opened that property to the possibility of development, but the council went ahead with the easement.
[quote]“The firm techDavis, citing potential conflicts of interest, is pulling back funding…”[/quote]
Is it a firm? A 501 c 3? Is it, in fact, “comprised of current and former senior technology executives, as well as ex officio members from the government, academic, and business services sectors…” as it says on the techdavis.org web site? Who is providing the funding?
[quote] “… will dedicate $360,000 in funding over the next three fiscal years for shared initiatives, including work on technology‐related economic development, branding, advocacy, and partnership enhancement with the business, research, academic, and capital sectors.” [/quote]
Shared with and by whom? City staff, working with techDAVIS? We don’t have any individuals identified at techDAVIS, other than David Morris. What are these funds going to be used for? Are they encumbered in some manner, or do they just go into the general fund?
[quote] “The move would cost about $40,000 this year from the General Fund Balance.The city intends to look for grants and other sources to help fund the two years of $120,000 still remaining on the current contract.” [/quote]
Rob is now a full city employee. If grants and other sources are not forthcoming, does his employment status remain as before (a 3-year contract at $240k/year)?
I suggest that the terms of the proposed Cooperative Agreement be made public, and the item be discussed in public by the council. There have been too many unclear aspects of this already. If you want to work with public agencies and city staff, you need to do so in public with full transparency.
[quote]I suggest that the terms of the proposed Cooperative Agreement be made public, and the item be discussed in public by the council.[/quote]The entire Cooperative Agreement is in the Staff Report online. It is on the City Council agenda for July 2nd.
From the proposed contract:
[quote]The City Manager, in consultation with the City Council through its annual
budget deliberations, shall determine the programs funded as part of this Agreement or at such
times as may be necessary or convenient. techDAVIS shall be notified of the City‘s
deliberations and may provide its input on opportunities or programs for funding.[/quote]
Has anyone ever seen language like this in a legitimate grant? Making a private firm a contractual party to a governmental entity’s funding deliberations on an ongoing basis?
This is not better. It’s worse. The council should strike this language; it’s effectively selling access to funding deliberations.
[quote]The City Attorney acknowledges that there are no actual conflicts under the existing partnership[/quote]
I concur with Don Shore’s comment above.
One gets the impression that the ambiguous use of language in reference to actual costs is an attempt to camouflage the actual costs.
This type of strategy will fail in Davis (thank goodness; we have enough vigilant citizens to call them on it.
I still say the money would be better spend on retaining the certified expert tree-trimmers that were laid off by the city; I suspect we will be seeing the quality of tree-trimming decline (and incidence of mutilated and thus health-compromised trees rise).
By creating positions such as “chief innovation officer”, we are moving in the direction of transitioning city planning decisions wholly into the hands of the ‘experts’, who employ their own specialized language (including camouflaging terminology and language) and makes the planning process language more technical and thus less amenable to scrutiny by interested residents and taxpayers, such as many on this forum.
The City Manager has control over how the money is spent. The language is clear.
Granting bodies routinely require periodic reports and advance disclosure of intended use of funds. Ongoing input and/or dialog between grantor and grantee is also not inappropriate, particularly in a situation where a specific detailed work plan has not been laid out in advance.
techDAVIS has offered the City $360,000 for the purposes of tech economic development. Like the NRCS grant, the City can elect to take the money or decline the money. Unlike the NRCS money, which appears to be needed to pay back an ill-advised loan from the City’s road fund to support the agenda of the open space special interest group, the techDAVIS money goes straight to the General Fund.
From the skeptical comments on here it looks like the city’s “fix” is far from a done deal.
“… to support the [s]agenda of the open space special interest group[/s]” open space program approved by the voters.
There is nothing ill-advised about the loan. You must be a land developer.
[quote] the techDAVIS money goes straight to the General Fund.[/quote]
Correct. So the comments about a partnership with techDAVIS was just press release PR.
Rob White is now a city employee with a three-year contract.
TechDAVIS has agreed to give $360K to the general fund, to be used at the discretion of the City Manager.
They can back out of that offer for any reason (or none) at any time.
And we still don’t know who they are, other than David Morris, but it really doesn’t matter at this point.
“And we still don’t know who they are, other than David Morris, but it really doesn’t matter at this point.”
That’s because there is no one other than Dave Morris at this point.
“the techDAVIS money goes straight to the General Fund.”
“So the comments about a partnership with techDAVIS was just press release PR.”
If the city gets $360,000 to carry out the innovation projects we select and carry out (with input from techDAVIS), I’d call that a partnership. What difference does it make that the donated funding goes through the general fund? I don’t get your “it’s just PR” complaint.